Man Dies After Being Punched

[MJS]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40604515/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts/

DETROIT — The death of a 67-year-old Detroit Burger King customer who police say fell and later died after being punched by a 20-year-old employee has been ruled a homicide.

Wayne County medical examiner's office spokesman Dennis Niemiec says an autopsy conducted Friday determined that Paul Cannon died from blunt force trauma to the head.

Niemiec says the man's dentures were "not an issue" in the death. An earlier report said the punch may have caused the older man to choke on his dentures.

Police say Cannon was reportedly causing a disturbance Thursday afternoon at the restaurant on the city's east side and tried to hit the worker, who swung back.
The worker was in police custody Friday.

Burger King spokeswoman Denise Wilson said Friday that company officials were aware of the incident, and the franchise owner was cooperating with police.

For those that have defended themselves in a confrontation or for those that train to be capable of defending themselves, do you take the results of your strikes, into consideration? We've heard cases of someone falling and hitting their head after being punched, and dying. In this case, a punch to the mouth, resulted in the guy to choke.

 

[Omar B]

Yeah, I do take the possible results into consideration. Last conflict I was in 2 years ago on my b-day I didn't even throw a punch, instead I accepted his punch and used it to hip throw the guy to the ground. Knocked the wind out of him and embarrassed him enough in a bar full of people that ti was the end of it.

 

[Big Don]

Every year or so, you'll hear about some kid playing baseball getting nailed, in the chest with the ball, and dropping dead. Freak things happen.

 

[jks9199]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40604515/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts/




For those that have defended themselves in a confrontation or for those that train to be capable of defending themselves, do you take the results of your strikes, into consideration? We've heard cases of someone falling and hitting their head after being punched, and dying. In this case, a punch to the mouth, resulted in the guy to choke.

Just a note, based only on the snippet you posted...

The death was a homicide. Homicide is the killing of a human being by another human being. Whether it's a criminal homicide is the decision of the prosecutor.

The job of the medical examiner is to rule on cause and manner of death. Manner is the mechanism; in this case, it sounds like it was probably strangulation due to the dentures blocking his airway. There are only 5 causes of death: Natural, Accidental, Suicide, Homicide, or Unknown.

 

[Big Don]

Old age, by the way, is NOT a cause of death.

 

[Tez3]

Here we would have an Inquest (which is a court of law here) and the coroner or even a jury can chose from many verdicts to cover this case. This includes accident, unlawful killing, lawful killing ( killing in self defence is this), death by misadventure or even an open verdict if they can't decide. There's a good few that wouldn't fit in this case including death by self neglect or by industrial disease, the latter is a verdict to enable proceedings to be taken if companies are negligent or to allow compensation to be paid. There's a death by neglect verdict too.

Probably it would be death by misadventure going on the 'evidence' supplied if it were here.

If I'm not on duty I don't take into account any damage I may cause, I'm female, too old and too small so if I damage someone who starts on me it's just plain tough and yes I expect to get away with it.

 

[Rich Parsons]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40604515/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts/




For those that have defended themselves in a confrontation or for those that train to be capable of defending themselves, do you take the results of your strikes, into consideration? We've heard cases of someone falling and hitting their head after being punched, and dying. In this case, a punch to the mouth, resulted in the guy to choke.

Yes, when I as confronted a few years ago by an older man (* I would say early mid 60's *) he was angry and approached me while yelling he was going to kill me. He swung I passed and checked his shoulder with a hand. He fell onto his side. The person with him was screaming do not hurt him. He was ok, no real damage other than his ego for falling down.

I was not going to stand there and get hit.
But I did not think fiting the older man in the face or body was the appropriate response. A push to the shoulder to keep him off balance so he could not swing a sceond time was my idea of the proper response.

Of course the off duty officer who was surprised by the guy and did not see him but saw me and my reaction was drawing his weapon with his surprised and yelling wife. The officer did not fire and once he realized that I was not the threat but responding to one his weapon went away.

My point here is that no one was hurt so the response could be listed as appropriate, but if someone had been hurt then there would be questions.

 

[Sukerkin]

As ever, the only way not to get hurt or to cause more injury than than you intended is not to get into a fight. That is oh-so-much easier said than done but it can be done; to date, I have only had to use my martial training once in my adult life and that was because of a momentary bad decison on my part.

Reagrdless, punching a pensioner is hardly an appropriate response by a young and, presumably healthy, man. I don't know the story so I shall restrict myself to that, rather than launching into a "What is wrong with people!?" spiel.

 

[MJS]

Much like the response that we choose, I think that taking the person into consideration is just as important. A 20yo punk trying to mug you, an old man or drunk Uncle Frank, should all be approached differently, IMO.

Of course, like Rich said, I'm not going to stand there and get hit either. Even in Richs response, I'd imagine the guy still could've gotten hurt when he fell, despite the 'gentle' approach. I say gentle, because IMO it was more gentle, than landing one on the guys face.

JKS mentioned the 5 ways to die. Would this still be homicide even if my original intent was not to kill the person? I mean, as I said, we need to be aware of what we're doing, but OTOH, I dont think that we should be so paranoid that we dont even defend ourselves, out of fear of the outcome. IMO, if the other person didn't attack us......

 

[Tez3]

As ever, the only way not to get hurt or to cause more injury than than you intended is not to get into a fight. That is oh-so-much easier said than done but it can be done; to date, I have only had to use my martial training once in my adult life and that was because of a momentary bad decison on my part.

Reagrdless, punching a pensioner is hardly an appropriate response by a young and, presumably healthy, man. I don't know the story so I shall restrict myself to that, rather than launching into a "What is wrong with people!?" spiel.

These days I'd hesitate to call 67 old, I know a good many of that age who could give a young chap a good beating so I wouldn't go with the thought that a young chap shouldn't be hitting an old one.

 

[sgtmac_46]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40604515/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts/




For those that have defended themselves in a confrontation or for those that train to be capable of defending themselves, do you take the results of your strikes, into consideration? We've heard cases of someone falling and hitting their head after being punched, and dying. In this case, a punch to the mouth, resulted in the guy to choke.

It would be unjust of a legal system to charge someone with a crime for the unintended and unforeseen consequences of lawful actions, to wit, a self defense situation, where the individual actions were justified by the situation, but where the results were more severe than intended.

 

[jks9199]

Much like the response that we choose, I think that taking the person into consideration is just as important. A 20yo punk trying to mug you, an old man or drunk Uncle Frank, should all be approached differently, IMO.

Of course, like Rich said, I'm not going to stand there and get hit either. Even in Richs response, I'd imagine the guy still could've gotten hurt when he fell, despite the 'gentle' approach. I say gentle, because IMO it was more gentle, than landing one on the guys face.

JKS mentioned the 5 ways to die. Would this still be homicide even if my original intent was not to kill the person? I mean, as I said, we need to be aware of what we're doing, but OTOH, I dont think that we should be so paranoid that we dont even defend ourselves, out of fear of the outcome. IMO, if the other person didn't attack us......

Yes, it'd still be homicide. Further classifications of homicide would include but not be limited to accidental, negligent, or murder. In this case, my guess is that he'd be looking at either 2nd degree murder or manslaughter depending on the totality of the circumstances and the mood of the prosecutor.

Oh -- and for those questioning a young lad attacking a pensioner... Take a look at Bob's Portraits of the Masters. Several of them would qualify as pensioners, in any sense of the word... And I know for a fact that at least one would likely have tucked the "youngster's" hand somewhere anatomically unlikely... and that's if the youngster were lucky!

 

[Bruno@MT]

It would be unjust of a legal system to charge someone with a crime for the unintended and unforeseen consequences of lawful actions, to wit, a self defense situation, where the individual actions were justified by the situation, but where the results were more severe than intended.

Depends.

For example, driving on the road is a lawful activity, but if a child shoots in front of it and gets killed, the driver can still be blamed, even if he was driving withon the legal limits if the event could have been anticipated. The reasoning that if the driver is in a situation where he cannot react in time if such a thing happens, he should have slowed down in anticipation. Ok this was a bit of a tangent. But if there was a foreseeable complication, then it could be ruled that it was negligent on the part of the young guy.

 

[MJS]

Yes, it'd still be homicide. Further classifications of homicide would include but not be limited to accidental, negligent, or murder. In this case, my guess is that he'd be looking at either 2nd degree murder or manslaughter depending on the totality of the circumstances and the mood of the prosecutor.

Oh -- and for those questioning a young lad attacking a pensioner... Take a look at Bob's Portraits of the Masters. Several of them would qualify as pensioners, in any sense of the word... And I know for a fact that at least one would likely have tucked the "youngster's" hand somewhere anatomically unlikely... and that's if the youngster were lucky!

So even if the defense was perfectly legal, the person is still going to be charged? There was a case in New Haven Ct a while back. I believe I linked the article on the forum. Guy was in the park, eating lunch. Was approached by the badguy, who IIRC, pulled a knife and attempted to rob the victim. Victim pulled a gun, which he was legally allowed to carry, and shot the guy twice. I do not believe he was charged with anything. I dont believe the badguy died. Lets say that he did. Would the victim be charged with murder?

 

[MJS]

Depends.

For example, driving on the road is a lawful activity, but if a child shoots in front of it and gets killed, the driver can still be blamed, even if he was driving withon the legal limits if the event could have been anticipated. The reasoning that if the driver is in a situation where he cannot react in time if such a thing happens, he should have slowed down in anticipation. Ok this was a bit of a tangent. But if there was a foreseeable complication, then it could be ruled that it was negligent on the part of the young guy.

How could something like that be anticipated? If I'm driving on a road, driving the posted speed limit and a kid darts out between 2 parked cars, and gets hit and killed, how was that avoidable? Lets say the posted speed limit is 30mph. Is the driver supposed to drop down to 20mph, and assume that someone may dart out, because if thats the case, then IMO, there'd be alot of paranoid drivers out there. LOL. Now, if I saw the kid running towards the road, showing no sign of stopping and totally clueless to oncoming traffic, then yeah, common sense should tell the driver to be more alert.

 

[Cryozombie]

Reagrdless, punching a pensioner is hardly an appropriate response by a young and, presumably healthy, man. I don't know the story so I shall restrict myself to that, rather than launching into a "What is wrong with people!?" spiel.

I don't think Age should really be much of a factor. I've read stories of kids 10-14 years old killing adults during assaults, and yet we are still told "The Adult should know better and not lay a hand on the 'child'"

Really?

I think the same thing goes for an old guy. a 67 year old commited to doing violence can kill me as dead as that 14 year old in the previous example... I wont stop to say "hey there retiree, could you stop hitting me, because I as a younger guy I know better than to fight back"

 

[Sukerkin]

I disagree but clearly I live in a more sheltered and less violent world where men old enough to know much better do not require me to kill them in case they kill me - for which status I am grateful.

 

[Bruno@MT]

How could something like that be anticipated? If I'm driving on a road, driving the posted speed limit and a kid darts out between 2 parked cars, and gets hit and killed, how was that avoidable? Lets say the posted speed limit is 30mph. Is the driver supposed to drop down to 20mph, and assume that someone may dart out, because if thats the case, then IMO, there'd be alot of paranoid drivers out there. LOL. Now, if I saw the kid running towards the road, showing no sign of stopping and totally clueless to oncoming traffic, then yeah, common sense should tell the driver to be more alert.

Yes, you should have dropped your speed because you were in a situation where you know you had no good overview of the situation. You can't just hope that nothing will happen. It is up to you to drive safely, which can mean more things than only minding the speed limit.

 

[MJS]

Yes, you should have dropped your speed because you were in a situation where you know you had no good overview of the situation. You can't just hope that nothing will happen. It is up to you to drive safely, which can mean more things than only minding the speed limit.

I'm going to disagree, because this sounds like its a case of someone not taking responsibility for their actions. If I walk into a store, on a wet, snowy day, ignoring the "Wet Floor: Caution" signs, and land on my ***, thats my fault, IMO. I need to take responsibility for that. But on a normal day, I should be able to go as normal. I dont ease my way into the store, looking above, out of fear that one of the lights may fall on my head. LOL.

On a normal day, while driving, a dog may shoot across the street. Should I also drive 10mph below because of that? If I'm not breaking any traffic laws, its an accident, not negligence. Something like this happened a while ago while a postal truck. Kid shot out, got hit. Witnesses provided accounts that the driver was not going fast, and that the kid came out from 2 parked cars. No charges.

Seems to me that there will be alot of people who're very paranoid, walking around. I mean, any time we get into our cars, we could get into a crash. That doesnt mean that I should never drive, drive 10mph below because I may crash. I may slip and fall in the shower. I use caution to prevent a fall, but sometimes things are unavoidable. In the case of this article, IMO, I dont think that I or anyone else should be so paranoid that we never defend ourselves. I mean, we may as well not even touch the guy and do nothing but avoid. How productive it that?

 

[Rich Parsons]

I'm going to disagree, because this sounds like its a case of someone not taking responsibility for their actions. If I walk into a store, on a wet, snowy day, ignoring the "Wet Floor: Caution" signs, and land on my ***, thats my fault, IMO. I need to take responsibility for that. But on a normal day, I should be able to go as normal. I dont ease my way into the store, looking above, out of fear that one of the lights may fall on my head. LOL.

On a normal day, while driving, a dog may shoot across the street. Should I also drive 10mph below because of that? If I'm not breaking any traffic laws, its an accident, not negligence. Something like this happened a while ago while a postal truck. Kid shot out, got hit. Witnesses provided accounts that the driver was not going fast, and that the kid came out from 2 parked cars. No charges.

Seems to me that there will be alot of people who're very paranoid, walking around. I mean, any time we get into our cars, we could get into a crash. That doesnt mean that I should never drive, drive 10mph below because I may crash. I may slip and fall in the shower. I use caution to prevent a fall, but sometimes things are unavoidable. In the case of this article, IMO, I dont think that I or anyone else should be so paranoid that we never defend ourselves. I mean, we may as well not even touch the guy and do nothing but avoid. How productive it that?

MJS,

Just let me say I have this very same discussion with some local police who think that you need to go 5 mph or less in all situations to be safe. Many times they are also the ones who think they should be the only ones armed.

I do not think it is right as you say. Common Sense and responsibility should take its due course but it does not.